Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   You're either straight, gay, or lying?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 158 (511354)
06-09-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by onifre
06-09-2009 1:07 PM


Re: Bi/Gay/whatever
Wait, your saying if someone blows a dude once he's gay for life? That doesn't seem fair.
Life's not fair, Oni.
But yeah, that's what I'm sayin' (especially if he got a boner while doin it or didn't throw up)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 1:07 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 1:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 62 of 158 (511359)
06-09-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2009 1:16 PM


Re: Bi/Gay/whatever
But being gay doesn't have to mean that you can't get it on with the oppoisite sex.
And why doesn't that work just the same for being straight?
The person is completely straight, but every now and then gets it on with the same sex. If you can be completely gay but get it on with the opposite sex and still be gay, then the same works for being straight and getting it on with the same sex and still being straight.
If it's good for one side of the argument it's good for the other, right?
Oh, that's your problem. Females are a peculiar bunch. Nobody has them figured out yet.
That's 'cause no one is listening to Dr. Phil!
We're talking about dudes (if you want to bail now, that's cool).
I'm in, it's cool.
But a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men.
The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.
People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.
In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured genital arousal patterns in response to images of men and women. The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men.
If this is the evidence then it seems very inconclusive.
I have a friend, a comic, ( NOT ME), who is straight as an arrow but has "gotten it on" with another dude in the heat of a threesome. I jokingly called him gay for it, but he told me he wasn't. He's never ever been attracted to men, but found himself in the heat of the moment with another dude and said fuck it, and plugged him. I guess he's not gay becuase he's never done it since, according to him, but he's very up-front so I have no reason to doubt him. But by your standard he is gay because he did it once.
How about dudes who are into "snowballing"...? Is that gay?
It's a weird world right now CS, I don't think much can be defined in terms of human sexuality anymore.
You're interesting enough (because you're funny), but from your myspace videos I can assure you that you are not attractive
I've lost 40 pounds since those videos! I'm a hunk of a man these days.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 1:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 2:02 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 63 of 158 (511360)
06-09-2009 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2009 1:19 PM


Re: Bi/Gay/whatever
But yeah, that's what I'm sayin' (especially if he got a boner while doin it or didn't throw up)
Dude, I've gotten a boner during air turbulence - lol
I don't think your argument is very good.
If you can be gay and get it on with the opposite sex and remain gay, then you can be straight, have sex with the same sex and remain straight. It just seems logical if we make the argument for one we can make the argument for the other.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 1:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 2:04 PM onifre has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 64 of 158 (511362)
06-09-2009 1:57 PM


What about transgenders? If a biological male feels that she is a female trapped in a male body, is she gay? Does the definition change pre- vs post-op? Would you refer to the person as he, she, or it? Does it make a difference whether the person is sexually attracted to men? Women? Both?
Why the obsession with labeling someone as "gay" or "straight?" Why not simply let the person label themselves, since nobody knows person's motivations and attractions better than the person him/herself?
I've known both men and women who were gay, straight, bi, or transsexual. It seems to me that sexuality is a sliding scale - some people are attracted to both sexes equally, some lean a little one way more than the other, and some people are at the extremes. Transsexuals add on the issue of gender identification to the "what am I attracted to" scale.
Personally, I refer to people they way they refer to themselves. If a person tells me they are bisexual, I refer to them as bisexual without questioning whether having performed fellatio makes one irrevocably "gay for life." If a transsexual prefers to be identified as female, I oblige. I find that social and personal identity are more relevant in everyday life than technicalities of genetics or past behavior.
That, and I really see no reason to insist that a transgendered female is actually still a man, or insist that a bisexual man is gay despite their attempts to correct me. The best I could expect is to be seen as a hurtful bigot in such a situation. Accepting other people's self-identification typically makes interpersonal interactions run a bit smoother, promotes tolerance of people whose life experiences differ from my own, and basically makes the world a better place.

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Phat, posted 06-09-2009 6:39 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 158 (511364)
06-09-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by onifre
06-09-2009 1:38 PM


Re: Bi/Gay/whatever
But being gay doesn't have to mean that you can't get it on with the oppoisite sex.
And why doesn't that work just the same for being straight?
Because things have been defined in terms of strait-ness.
If we defined it as gay or not-gay, then being gay would mean that you could never have done it with the opposite sex.
The person is completely straight, but every now and then gets it on with the same sex.
Gay.
If you can be completely gay but get it on with the opposite sex and still be gay, then the same works for being straight and getting it on with the same sex and still being straight.
No, because straight is being defined as never doing anything with the same sex.
If it's good for one side of the argument it's good for the other, right?
Nope.
I have a friend, a comic, ( NOT ME),
Oh, here we go... another one of those "I have this friend" stories....
who is straight as an arrow but has "gotten it on" with another dude in the heat of a threesome.
Just being in a threesome with another dude is pretty gay.
He's never ever been attracted to men, but found himself in the heat of the moment with another dude and said fuck it, and plugged him. I guess he's not gay becuase he's never done it since, according to him, but he's very up-front so I have no reason to doubt him. But by your standard he is gay because he did it once.
Yes, by my standard in this thread he is not-straight, and that makes him gay.
How about dudes who are into "snowballing"...? Is that gay?
I honestly don't know, but I'm gonna go with no on that one because there's no other people of the same sex involved. Its you're own spunk so... It'd be like drinking your pee, and that doesn't make you gay.
It's a weird world right now CS, I don't think much can be defined in terms of human sexuality anymore.
Its a pretty simple standard though... There's the group of people who don't do any freaky* shit, the dull and boring "straight" group. And then there's the others... and they're all gay
*where 'freaky' involves the same sex
I've lost 40 pounds since those videos! I'm a hunk of a man these days.
Hey, congradulations!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 1:38 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 158 (511366)
06-09-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by onifre
06-09-2009 1:42 PM


Re: Bi/Gay/whatever
Dude, I've gotten a boner during air turbulence - lol
It gets me every time.
I don't think your argument is very good.
If you can be gay and get it on with the opposite sex and remain gay, then you can be straight, have sex with the same sex and remain straight. It just seems logical if we make the argument for one we can make the argument for the other.
If that's your only problem then I cleared it up in Message 65 and you can reply there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 1:42 PM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 158 (511373)
06-09-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
06-08-2009 5:48 PM


Re: Chat Bots and X-Men mutants unite!
Once someone has had multiple and virtually anonymous partners, they have established a mental pattern and addiction that is difficult to break out of. Even if they claim to love someone special, the sexual intimacy is not nearly so deep as it would be had the person remained somewhat celibate prior to the relationship.
Just saw an interesting movie with this theory as a large part of the plot. It's entitled, Choke, with Sam Rockwell, an awesome and hugely underrated actor.
In any case, yes, I would agree that the more a person endeavors in meaningless, casual sex, the more they desensitize themselves to meaningful relationships. I think they run a risk of being incapable of associating sex with love to the point where the two are nowhere near synonymous.
Having said that, it doesn't mean that everyone who engages in casual sex is going to be incapable of having meaningful relationships because of some casual sex. But I would agree that, like with most things, there is some risk involved.

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 06-08-2009 5:48 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2009 2:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 68 of 158 (511377)
06-09-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Chat Bots and X-Men mutants unite!
In any case, yes, I would agree that the more a person endeavors in meaningless, casual sex, the more they desensitize themselves to meaningful relationships.
Bullshit.
I think they run a risk of being incapable of associating sex with love to the point where the two are nowhere near synonymous.
Who cares?
There is no need for sex to be so overrated in terms of bonding. One can have casual sexual partners and still maintain a healthy, loving relationship with one or more individuals. Frankly, sex doesn't need to be associated with love at all. Love is good enough by itself, with or without sex.
Love exists independently from sex. Many non-sexual relationships are normal, healthy, and extremely deep and committed. Friendships, family members, even spousal love where one partner has been injured or is otherwise unable to have sex, are all deeply committed, healthy examples of love that does not require sex.
I personally know couples that are deeply committed and madly in love with each other, but who do have casual sex outside of their relationship. It hasn't lessened the amount of love and respect they have for each other.
Love, being a subjective human emotion, is different from one person to the next. Don't make the mistake of assuming that love must work for everyone else the same way that it works for you. Casual sex and even polyamory do not necessarily have any effect on a person's capacity to feel love and engage in committed relationships.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 3:25 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 158 (511387)
06-09-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rahvin
06-09-2009 2:43 PM


Re: Chat Bots and X-Men mutants unite!
Bullshit.
Ummmm.... Okay...
Who cares?
Well, me, for one...
Haven't you seen those very sad people that can't form meaningful relationships and live their lives in continual, destructive relationships? And you ask, "Who cares?" I care. I don't like to see people hurt. That's like saying, who cares about drug addicts? I care. They are welcome to live whatever lifestyle they choose, but shooting rays of sunshine up their ass by pretending it's not self-destructive isn't the way to go about it.
There is no need for sex to be so overrated in terms of bonding. One can have casual sexual partners and still maintain a healthy, loving relationship with one or more individuals. Frankly, sex doesn't need to be associated with love at all. Love is good enough by itself, with or without sex.
So, then, tell me... If there is such a big difference between sex and love, then why do mates become jealous of affairs? Why do they feel so hurt if it's just sex?
Love exists independently from sex.
Yes, I agree to an extent, but I think you are oversimplifying. Wouldn't you also agree that there are different forms of love. Is my love for music the same as my love for my dog? Is the love for my dog the same as my love for my father? Is my love for my father the same as the love for my wife? Is the love for my wife the same as the love for my son?
I'm not saying that if you engage in some casual sex that you'll all-of-a-sudden turn in to some sex-crazed, disease-infested whore. Shit, I've had plenty of casual sex in my time. I'm just recognizing that there are consequences for our actions. The human psyche is a fragile thing; more fragile than I think we aware of. I'm simply saying that the more we indulge in it and trivial sex, the more social problems we run the risk of having.
Is that really such a bizarre interpretation?
I personally know couples that are deeply committed and madly in love with each other, but who do have casual sex outside of their relationship. It hasn't lessened the amount of love and respect they have for each other.
Great, but that doesn't mean that's the norm, nor does it mean that there are not issues within that relationship because of that lifestyle. Very few couples can actually live a swinger lifestyle while maintaining a healthy relationship. I, too, know swinger couples. And from what I've seen, the cream inevitably rises to the surface.
Love, being a subjective human emotion, is different from one person to the next. Don't make the mistake of assuming that love must work for everyone else the same way that it works for you. Casual sex and even polyamory do not necessarily have any effect on a person's capacity to feel love and engage in committed relationships.
If what you speak of was true in most cases, the entire world would live this way. The evidence is overwhelmingly not in your favor. And it is entirely independent of cultural differences. Seems like there is something a little more hardwired than that, knowing that this is the case. You have to ask yourself why that is while trying to sell the pipe dream.
To reiterate: If you want to have lots of casual sex with lots of willing partners, you are more than welcome to it. But I also don't think that Taz's observations here are ridiculous. He makes a good point, as do you to some degree.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : typo
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : reworded a statement

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2009 2:43 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 3:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 76 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 5:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 77 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2009 6:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 158 (511392)
06-09-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2009 3:25 PM


And from what I've seen, the cream inevitably rises to the surface.
There's gotta be a better way to phrase that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 3:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 71 of 158 (511413)
06-09-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2009 3:35 PM


Hydro writes:
And from what I've seen, the cream inevitably rises to the surface.
CS writes:
There's gotta be a better way to phrase that...
...you beat me to the punchline!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 4:45 PM onifre has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 158 (511416)
06-09-2009 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by onifre
06-09-2009 4:36 PM


Maybe it was a Freudian slip?

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 4:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 5:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 73 of 158 (511419)
06-09-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2009 2:02 PM


Re: Bi/Gay/whatever
Because things have been defined in terms of strait-ness.
If we defined it as gay or not-gay, then being gay would mean that you could never have done it with the opposite sex.
"We defined it in terms of straightness"...?
Old definitions are no longer relevant these days. There is no destinction between a gay human and a straight human, so if a gay person can have sex with the opposite sex, then a straight person can have sex with the same sex, both keeping to their original sexual orientation.
Now I agree that by "old" society standards, it may not be viewed like that by everyone, you being an example of that. But an eventual social change will take place where this opinion will be more and more the norm.
No, because straight is being defined as never doing anything with the same sex.
Fine but then gay is defined as "never having sex with the opposite sex."
But wait, what about people who were straight for a portion of their lives and are now gay? Clearly those people have had sex with the opposite sex so, "gay" doesn't mean "never having sex with the opposite sex." Then equally, straight isn't defined as "never having had sex with the same sex".
Oni writes:
If it's good for one side of the argument it's good for the other, right?
CS writes:
Nope.
, I say it does. I think this type of difference in opinion is simply old ways vs new ways. And sadly, CS, much like disco, the "old ways" are fading out.
Oh, here we go... another one of those "I have this friend" stories....
I swear! Wait, I'm an atheist...shit. Trust me...?
Just being in a threesome with another dude is pretty gay.
Wait, I was in one with another dude and it was totally not gay. Our swords never crossed paths and it was always eye contact between him and I. In fact, it was in a car, him in the backseat me in the front. It was cool, and a fun story for my future grandkids to hear about...and totally not gay!
I honestly don't know, but I'm gonna go with no on that one because there's no other people of the same sex involved. Its you're own spunk so... It'd be like drinking your pee, and that doesn't make you gay.
Here's a great radio interview with Jim Jeffries and Patrice Oneil on what's considered gay, both stand-up comics, on the Opie and Anthony show. I laughed my ass off. And it goes well with this thread.
Its a pretty simple standard though... There's the group of people who don't do any freaky* shit, the dull and boring "straight" group. And then there's the others... and they're all gay
*where 'freaky' involves the same sex
You sound like most of my friends , so I appreciate your opinion on this. But honestly, this is an old view that will eventually fade out.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 2:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2009 2:37 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 74 of 158 (511421)
06-09-2009 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2009 4:45 PM


Maybe it was a Freudian slip?
Hey, whatever makes your cream rise, dude.
Now, about that pink Darth Vader costume...
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 4:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 5:15 PM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 158 (511422)
06-09-2009 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by onifre
06-09-2009 5:08 PM


Now, about that pink Darth Vader costume...
... Yeesh... Good point!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 5:08 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024